Hostage releases, prisoner exhcanges, and the Israeli death penalty
It was inevitable that after the announcement of the Israel/Gaza peace plan agreement and the initial euphoria about the hostage return, two things would occur fairly quickly. The first is that the Palestinians would declare this to be a victory for them, and the second is that Israel would be releasing tons of very dangerous and fanatical prisoners who would then go on to attempt to wreak destruction on Israelis and on Israel.
And sure enough, this sort of vicious murderer is rumored to be about to be released, among others too numerous to mention. And yes, Gazans are celebrating in their own very special way:
One group of Gazans was captured on video chanting “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahood, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud.” That is, “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.”
The fact that they’re chanting this is a clear indication that there will be no peace, as this chant is nothing less than a call for genocide.
I expect nothing less from them.
Still, Israel has shown an impressive ability to find and kill its enemies, wherever they may be, so I doubt the released prisoners will feel entirely safe. Then again, isn’t it ironic that Israel doesn’t execute such killers in the first place – keeping them alive and making itself vulnerable to hostage-taking in order to free them – and yet executes them extra-judicially with drones and the like?
It has to do with some peculiarities of Israeli law:
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Israel. Capital punishment has only been imposed twice in the history of the state and is only to be handed out for treason, genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the Jewish people during wartime.
An argument could be made that terrorist attacks fall under this definition, but it’s not the way the law has been used so far. This reluctance has a basis in Jewish tradition. It’s ironic that Jews are portrayed as “eye for an eye” justice-seekers when in reality that acted as a limiting principle, and Jews have long been reluctant to impose the death penalty:
Israel’s rare use of the death penalty may in part be due to Jewish religious law. Biblical law explicitly mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses, from murder and adultery to idolatry and desecration of the Sabbath. However, in ancient Israel, the death penalty was rarely carried out. Jewish scholars since the beginning of the common era have developed such restrictive rules to prevent execution of the innocent that the death penalty has become de facto abolished. Moses Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely “according to the judge’s caprice”. His concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission. Conservative Jewish religious leaders and scholars believe that the death penalty should remain unused, even in extreme cases such as political assassination.
One of the reasons is that during the 1948 war, an Israeli officer was accused of espionage, court-martialed, and then exonerated because the charges turned out to be false.
In recent years, Israel has been edging closer to having the death penalty be available for terrorists, but it’s not yet the law. That means that such people remain in Israel’s prisons, which would seem to be an encouragement for hostage-taking rather than a deterrence, given Israel’s willingness to make such exchanges in order to get hostages back. If there were no Arab terrorist murderers in Israeli prisons, there almost certainly would be less motivation to take hostages because the terrorists would get smaller fish in exchange.
This article presents the argument against the death penalty for terrorists (both in the US and in Israel), which goes like this: execution wouldn’t be a deterrent because terrorists don’t care if they die, and don’t mind being martyred, either. The idea is that it creates an incentive through martyrdom rather than a disincentive for terrorism.
That makes a certain amount of sense regarding terrorism, although I don’t really buy it because even in prison such people become heroes and martyrs. And it doesn’t make any sense regarding hostage-taking with the goal of freeing prisoners, which it encourages.
When the opposition believes their cause is as righteous as yours, then you proceed to the ultimate test.
This round may all but over soon, but sure as the sun rises Hamas will start over taking hostages.
Israel is a secular state, not bound by Jewish law, though no doubt influenced by it. Its roots are more leftwing and socialist than religious, so while it has moved to the right, and accommodates religious law on things like marriage, it’s a long way from where it should be on capital punishment. One might have thought October 7th would be an impetus to change, but the leftist judicial system (which Netanyahu has tried to reform) still dominates.
The arguments against executing terrorists as summarized by Neo are quite weak. An argument for the death penalty in general could be made: that without mitigating circumstances, “he who sheds man’s blood should by man be slain.”
Israelis have an unconscious death wish, it seems. They’ve allowed, once again, the return of 20 or so living hostages and some dead bodies to be prioritized over the safety of the millions of living Israeli citizenry. The entire country is now going to endure a “rinse and repeat” cycle by the thousands of barbarians they are returning in this “deal”.
So, when the Hamas savages recover strength, expect another massive attack on Israel in time.
Far better to have killed every living Hamas murderer, including those in prison, than give safety up to save 20 or so hostages who may or may not be alive.
That’s assuming Hamas actually even turns them over.
SMH. Sentiment over common sense.
execution wouldn’t be a deterrent because terrorists don’t care if they die
It is 100% effective in “deterring” further terrorism committed by the executed terrorist. And it is 100% effective in “deterring” further violent crimes committed by the executed violent criminal. Since something like 80% of violent crimes are committed by the 20% worst criminals, significant gains in public safety and public order can be achieved with relatively few executions.
As for deterring other criminals’ crimes (pour encourager les autres) what deters criminals is the swiftness and certitude of punishment rather than the severity. The system we have now, where there are dozens of arrests for every trial, no bail releases for people who actually might go to trial, and quite light sentences imposed before a serious one, and years of litigation for the most serious penalties–we would struggle to craft a system that promotes less deterrence than our current one if we tried to do so on purpose.
The number of people who were deterred from killing someone by the existence of a death penalty cannot be determined. In other words, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is unquantifable.
Maybe, just maybe, it is significant.
But, of course, deterrence is not or should not be the main purpose of the death penalty.
“This article presents the argument against the death penalty for terrorists (both in the US and in Israel), which goes like this: execution wouldn’t be a deterrent because terrorists don’t care if they die, and don’t mind being martyred, either. The idea is that it creates an incentive through martyrdom rather than a disincentive for terrorism.”
Deterrence isn’t the only issue in the first place. Do some crimes merit death (in the sense of just deserts), or not? If so, then…
I support the deal. I am a realist. I call this the ” age of experts” and I believe it is drawing to a
close.
Well, if Israel used firing squads to execute terrorists and had the shooters use bullets dipped in pig blood – and made it widely known that this was being done – then terrorists would perhaps think twice about longing to die.
And if Israel fed their POW/ Terrorists pork, and prepared in pork fat all the foods given to the prisoners maybe that would encourage terrorists about to be captured to kill themselves; a win win for Israel.
“execution wouldn’t be a deterrent because terrorists don’t care if they die.”
Islam’s incentive for fighting and dying against the infidel is Allah’s promise of ‘Paradise’.
Allah in his ‘sacred’ Qur’an has also declared that any Muslim who, at the time of their death is in an ‘unclean’ state can never enter paradise.
So not only should every captured terrorist be tried and executed but for maximum deterrence, the execution must be done in a visually unclean manner that is undeniable. Similar methods should be implemented in combat, when terrorists are wounded and killed.
Remove the jihadist’s ‘incentive’ by using their own beliefs against them.
@JohnTyler:Well, if Israel used firing squads to execute terrorists and had the shooters use bullets dipped in pig blood – and made it widely known that this was being done – then terrorists would perhaps think twice about longing to die.
And if Israel fed their POW/ Terrorists pork, and prepared in pork fat all the foods given to the prisoners maybe that would encourage terrorists about to be captured to kill themselves; a win win for Israel.
This is not going to deter Muslims because their faith does not actually work this way. Muslims incur no sin when their contact with pork is involuntary, after death, or in extremis, like starvation. It will not work with Muslims any more than it would with Jews, who are not going to be excited about all the pork-handling required by this scheme, quite aside from the basic inhumanity of the proposal.
Muslims do not believe that God gave non-Muslims a cheat code to keep Muslims out of Paradise. It would be like desecrating Jewish or Christian graves, offensive and barbaric but not a deterrent.
@Geoffery Britain:Allah in his ‘sacred’ Qur’an has also declared that any Muslim who, at the time of their death is in an ‘unclean’ state can never enter paradise.
100% wrong. Shahids are to be buried exactly as they died.
From Wikipedia:
Pershing wrote the following in his autobiography about the juramentados (Philippine Islamic Jihadists):
[The] juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice the army had already adopted, one that the Mohammadans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion
I’m thinking coating ammo on bacon grease…
The only effective way to prevent the Palestinians (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) from taking hostages is to eliminate the murderers, rapists, and terrorists that they seek to free by taking Israeli hostages.
So, Israel releases a few thousand terrorists because they won’t execute them.
Israel has shown once they release them, there’s a good chance that an IDF or Mossad bullet takes them out permanently – very clean.
Yes, it does seem to present a strage dichotomy of opinion when one compares the reluctance to impose capital punishment for heinous crimes to the willingness to use surreptitious means to eliminate terrorists, such as drone strikes, Mossad assassination squads and the like. The end result is the same: death at the hands of the state, and dead is dead. People make no sense.
@Cyril:Pershing wrote the following in his autobiography about the juramentados
I’m aware that Pershing believed that desecrating corpses with pork would have this effect, but that does not make it true. It’s not unusual for people to believe wrong things about other people’s faiths.
Those juramentados are considered shahid and shahid are already as pure they need to be, according to the hadith I already quoted above. They are not even prayed over as Muslims believe prayers are unnecessary for them.
If IF the hostages are released, this seems like an enourmously significant victory for Israel.
Hamas will, inevitably, violate the cease fire, because that is what they do. They will, reflexively, turn to their sponsors for support, but they (Iran, Hez, scare in Qatar) have been largely wiped out. What now?
And if Hamas has no more hostages…..
Then Israel can/will respond with full force and without risk that a current hostage may be killed unintentionally. Hamas will have the newly exchanged murderers to go to the battlefield, but they will face the IDF, not citizens. That may reduce their numbers more quickly and efficiently than sitting in Israeli prisons.
That’s all assuming the hostages are freed.
20+ years of seeing how Hamas operates has many of us skeptical, but just 18 months ago Iran was an intractable problem. Things have changed.
Those of you on the skeptical side will probably also agree with this essay by Gregg Roman, Director of the Middle East Forum. https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/the-ghost-of-gaza-how-hamas-survived
His essay is rather long, so I ended up only reading the first half and the last few grafs. He points out a basic contradiction in the Cease Fire Agreement in regards to Hamas.
1) If Hamas has enough organization and manpower to actually find, collect, and arrange the exchange of living and dead hostages, then they will have enough of it “together” to resist disarming or disappearing and will thus be able to reconstitute themselves later on.
2) if they are really so decimated as to recognize they are no longer a viable fighting or political force, at risk of losing their lives or control over Gaza, then they probably cannot really find and present all of the hostages by noon Monday.
And a lot depends on how much it appears that Trump got/gets played, where these contradictions may come to leave Hamas as a viable and future terrorist organization. Too much tunnel and machining infrastructure, arms, etc. may still be in Gaza or sneaked in to reduce them to a non-entity.
A very bracing, “tell it like it is” essay. As some may already know, the MEF position was that Israel should / should have pursued full military victory, as anything less leaves the option of a repeat of Oct. 7 at some future time.
Considering the “state of play” in the US courts regarding Trump, J6 defendants (and some martyrs), and Republicans/conservatives in general (and noting the UK as a corollary), I would say that Maimonides is on the right track as a general principle.
However, he was also not from an era with video of attacks; surveillance of attackers; DNA detection if the first two are insufficient; and other forensic techniques. I don’t know the level of proof & evidence that courts could command in his day, but they are certainly higher now.
Plus, the Muslim killers often boast about their crimes, and the Oct 7 ones certainly did.
So, I would say the killers “caught in the act” as it were do meet the criteria for the death penalty even under the strictest Jewish rulings designed to protect the innocent from undeserved punishment.
I doubt that Mossad is reading these comments and anyone in Israel would take my expert advice even if they did.
In re the “disjunct” of alive in prison and dead out of it: If a case is sufficiently murky that there really is some doubt of an individual’s guilt, and yet the IDF is concerned about further depredations by that person, they have the facility to observe that person’s actions after release and to make a determination of how dangerous he (and sometimes) she will be, and take appropriate pre-emptive steps if the post-hoc behavior confirms the original charges.
I remember the election where Hamas ousted Fatah and people rejoiced for Hamas was considered. ” moderate”.
R2L
Thinking sort of in that line. But in a different direction.
Trump has tied up all the ends. Even the local Muslim nations are on board. The IDF has withdrawn as required.
There are reports Hamas’ troops are back in town, torturing and murdering those who were insufficiently resistant, or something, to the Israel activities, or who resist Hamas’ retaking control. I believe some other bunch was supposed to take control.
Whatever bad thing happens, then, will be without the slightest excuse, or ally outside of the west’s campuses. No “popular uprising” against colonialism.
Given the nature of militant Islam in general and Hamas in particular, this is inevitable. I wonder if Trump’s plan is to leave them bare when they do it as he presumes they will. He delivered the peace, the other guys delivered war. Couldn’t be clearer, which means the IDF has fewer restrictions, moral or legal, in its next campaigns.
@Aesop Fan:Moses Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely “according to the judge’s caprice”.
Well, he died in 1204, virtually every government in those days executed people, and over the next 800 years that slippery slope he predicted did not come to pass. In fact it’s been the other way, with capital punishment originally being prescribed for many kinds of minor crime and its scope gradually reduced until it’s restricted to the most heinous crimes.
Some dates from England might be illustrative:
1808: Death penalty abolished for pickpockets
1832: Death penalty abolished for theft and counterfeiting
1835: Last execution for sodomy
1841: Death penalty abolished for rape
1946: Last execution for treason
1964: Last execution of any kind
1969: Death penalty permanently abolished for murder
From 1770 to 1830 about 35,000 death sentences were given but only about 20% were ever carried out.
There’s always been a baseline of governments that were very casual with it, or didn’t bother with anything like trying to do justice and there still are such places, but the progression he predicted simply did not happen.